ORDER :

[Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in proceedings No.TN/RECY/CP- 51000923260000911/CCR 18746 dated 23.05.2017 and quash the same.]

1. The petitioner herein is an Establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). In consequence to an inspection conducted by the first respondent on 04.05.2016, proceedings in Form C-18 dated 04.05.2016 was issued to the petitioner, calling upon them to pay the contribution for the period between 11/2009 to 11/2010. The petitioner, in their reply dated 10.06.2016 had stated that their establishment was covered under the ESI Act only with effect from October 2010 and hence the demand prior to that was pointless and also that the demand was barred by limitation. However, on 02.06.2017, the second respondent had issued an attachment notice dated 23.05.2017, for recovery of the contributions as per Form C-18 dated 04.05.2016, together with interest and other charges for a sum of Rs.1,64,598/-. Consequently, on 24.10.2017, the second respondent had issued a notice under Section 45-G of the Act, attaching the bank account of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,71,298/-, which was forwarded to the third respondent/Bank. The petitioner now challenges the proceedings of the second respondent dated 23.05.2017 in the present Writ Petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no notice under Section 45-A of the Act, was given prior to the order of attachment under Section 45-G of the Act and therefore, the impugned proceedings requires to be quashed. Even otherwise, he would submit that Form C-18 states that in case the claim is disputed, the establishment was requested to appear before the authority and accordingly, they had also raised their objections on 10.06.2016. Since they had disputed the claim, the respondents ought to have initiated the proceedings under Section 45-A of the Act and failure to do so, vitiates the entire proceedings.

3. The stand of the ESI counsel is that, since the documents were supplied by the establishment, no proceedings under Section 45-A of the Act is required before an attachment order is passed under Section 45-G of the Act. The second submission is that, if there is any dispute with regard to the determination of the amount of contribution, there is an appeal provided to the ESI Court under Section 75 of the Act and in view of the alternate remedy, the present Writ Petition has to be dismissed. He also placed reliance on the averments in the counter-affidavit.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Bank would submit that the order under Section 45-G of the Act was passed on 24.10.2017 and on 27.10.2017, the balance of Rs.1,71,298/- was kept on hold, though the order of interim stay was granted later on 30.10.2017 and that, the lien over the account continues till date.

5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsels.

6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the issuance of Form C-18, the respondents had not determined the contribution payable by the petitioner/ establishment. Form C-18 that has been issued to the petitioner herein, determines the contribution to be paid by the petitioner/establishment. The notice also refers to the consequential recovery action, as well as the payment of interest that would be taken against the establishment, if they do not pay contribution within the stipulated time. Form C-18 also gives an opportunity to give their objections. Thus, Form C-18 is deemed to be an 'Adhoc Notice', since the same was not determined after considering the objections of the petitioner establishment.

7. After issuance of Form C-18, the petitioner had also given their reply on 10.06.2016. In normal circumstances, the Corporation ought to have either accepted the objections and issued Form C-